Posts by CalebInFloroda

34

JW to SDA anyone do it ?

by Introvert 2 in

a couple friends pointed me to some info on the sabbath and i just plain like it, being the workaholic i am it's a lifesaver for me and gives me the motivation to be more balanced about my business and work schedule.

so from there i looked into the adventists and found a hall near my place and went last week.

i honestly enjoyed myself and the meeting time is not disruptive and the people were great and pretty laid back.

CalebInFloroda

I find it creepy that Gentiles enforce Sabbath-keeping and celebrating national Jewish holidays as requisites to salvation, and the SDA included.

The reason the SDA does this is the belief in a doctrine called Anglo-Israelism. This belief teaches that white Americans are descendants of the "lost" tribes of Israel. As such they believe that they should be bound to the tenets of the Mosaic Law because it is the constitution of the Tribes of Israel.

Among the other groups that share this belief are the one-time sister religion of the JWs known as the Worldwide Church of God under Armstrong (who also predicted that the world would end in 1975, by the way), and the Mormons (though the LDS does not keep the Jewish Sabbath, per se).

Now you can actually swab the inside of my cheek and find DNA specific hereditary markers of a Sephardic Jew of Semite origins, but these deluded people cannot do the same (I've had some of these tell me that DNA evidence is irrelevant or that G-d changes their blood to be Jewish in a spiritual way or perhaps the Devil is tampering with DNA results to hide the truth). My thoughts is you can take any day off at any time of the week and get the same effect as a good Jewish Sabbath.

Besides, why observe the Sabbath like a Jew and celebrate Jewish feasts like a Jew and dress like a Jew, etc., but belong to a different religion? Just convert if you like it that much. Otherwise a little borrowing here and there from this and that doesn't require you join any group or organization of any kind.

In my opinion you are better off being true to yourself without denominational ties for now. Take in what's around you, learn from life, and if you end up adopting a certain philosophy or ritual along the way, let it be something that adds to your freedom, not takes away from it.

16

This is funny! BAR article asks: "Was Eve Made from Adam’s Rib—or His Baculum?" But what is a Baculum?

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

we all know the bible story (as its translated into english) that eve was made from adam's rib.

now bible scholar, ziony zevit, distinguished professor of biblical literature and northwest semitic languages at american jewish university in bel-air, california has written in the 'biblical archeological review' that the hebrew word that is traditionally translated as rib which is 'istsela has been wrongly translated.. zevit says, "it was first translated as rib in the septuagint, a greek translation of the hebrew bible from the mid-third century b.c.e.

however, a more careful reading of the hebrew word for rib in the adam and eve story suggests that eve was created from another, very different, part of adams anatomyhis os baculum (penis bone).".

CalebInFloroda

@Phizzy

According to most Jews, Catholics, and some mainstream Protestants this narrative is indeed seen not as historical but as one of three creation stories in Scripture.

In the first, in Genesis chapter 1, Adam and Eve seem to be separate creations. But this first story was likely a redaction added to Genesis after the exile to Babylon ended.

The second story is the one we are discussing. It is the most ancient, and it tells the same story but employing older narrative devices. One of them is that humans are made from the elements that make up the universe: man from the earth and woman from man.

The third story is the Noachin flood and it is probably older than either of the first two stories as it originates with the Mesopotamian societies that surrounded the Hebrews. The popular cosmogony of the time what that the earth was placed in a cosmos made up not of a vacuum of space but completely full of water. This shared mythology did not concern itself with or promote belief in a universe that had a beginning but mainly stated that the gods created the current world from a previous one, flooding the older one away and starting anew. In the Jewish adaptation, Noah and his wife are the original parents.

While these are definitely not to be read as literal history they do have some historical significance and elements. To begin with they explain what ancients believed about the universe and how this shaped their view of society and their place in it.

Second, read within the Jewish sphere the stories employ personages believed to be historical but set within the scope of narratives designed for catechesis. The reason appears to be to teach lessons not on how the universe literally began but to support Jewish concepts on morality, values, and theology.

In other words the narratives are used not as the foundation for doctrine as in the Watchtower religion, but as a means to reiterate doctrine already in existence in Judaism.

5

John 13:35.

by Sabin in

so my husband believes the wording in john 13:35 is wrong.

instead of saying, "by this all will know that you are my disciples-if you have love among yourselves".

it should say "by this all will know that you are my disciples-if you have love for yourselves".

CalebInFloroda

The text reads in Greek:

EN TOUTO GNOSONTAI PANTES HOTI EMOI MATHETAI ESTAN EAN AGAPEN ECHETE EN ALLELOIS.

In English that would be:

By this will know all that my disciples you are if love you have among one another.

Or as the Common English Bible puts it:

This is how everyone will know that you are my disciples, when you love each other.

The word in question would therefore be the Greek word EN, which literally means "in" but as a preposition in connection with ALLELOIS which means "one another" or "people together" specifies being "in among."

While the word is not "for," as EN only means "in, among, at, with, on, by," it would not be wrong to render the verse: "...as long as you have love for one another." The meaning of the original Greek would not be lost in such an instance.

42

Yahweh's wonderful creation

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

when i thought of myself as a christian witness of yahweh attempting to be a footstep follower of jesus, psalm 104 was one of my favourites.

if i was ever in some wonderful scenic area, psalm 104 would jump into my mind, and i'd start to praise yahweh and jesus.. but if something horrible came to mind as in the following video, i'd always think of the favourite christian escape clause, it's all because of adam's sin.

but any connection between natural animal savagery and adam's sin is never logically made in the bible.. interestingly, the supposedly inspired psalm 104 (nwt-the grey one i guess) itself says that:.

CalebInFloroda

Perry,

I think it is wonderful that you have a Christian belief. And I know fully that you believe in your interpretation of the Hebrew texts. If you didn't you would not be a Christian.

So I don't doubt your strong faith and your interpretation of the Scriptures as to how they fit into your Christian paradigm. I never have.

My point has and always will be that you are not discussing what Jews believe, but what you as a Christian believe the texts say.

Besides, in reality as a Jew I hold no value in "believing" anything. "Faith" and "belief" are irrelevant to Jewish theology, at least in the way Christians view them.

But these things matter to you. The best thing to do is make more of them than merely debating with someone on how right you are and how wrong I am. What value is that?

Instead do good with what you believe. There are far more important things you can be doing with your time than arguing with me.

37

I don't want the Watchtower's version of paradise.

by StarTrekAngel in

i am writing this in the hopes that it may help someone in a debate.

i personally have not had a chance to discuss it with anyone but that is true for most other topics.

i think is a good one to analyze.

CalebInFloroda

It's the people in the picture that really freak me out. They look like a bunch of Mormons gathered for the annual Cumorah pageant!

Look at them...clean cut Gentiles, happy that Hitler's "solution for the Jews" worked so that they can get on with life without Semites!

Sure, there are a few "ethnics" included for the photo shoots, but when no one's looking I am sure they go back to work washing clothes and cleaning windows.

"We're so happy to wear Western culture clothing and live in American style homes playing under lighting that looks like it came from an episode of 'The Brady Bunch' television show!"

Why do I always get the feeling that unbeknownst to the people in the foreground that the Von Trapp family is escaping over those snow caps in the distance?

18

GOD in the Beginning

by Doug Mason in

the ancient hebrews left two bequests:.

a universal, single god named yahweh;.

a series of writings identified as sacred scripture..

CalebInFloroda

@Crazyguy

Remember, the Bible is a product of Judaism, not its foundation.

This means that the Hebrew Scriptures were written by members of a living and fully functioning Judaism. Most of the texts as we have them today were produced for liturgical purposes and not for personal reading.

I find that many exJWs, due to the way the Watchtower limited their exposure to the real world, have little to no experience with liturgy and how it shaped Scripture and vice versa for both Jews and Christians. These texts, read outside of their liturgical and cultural setting can produce a lot of conflicting personal interpretations. Therefore one needs to include a critical reading with the cultural and liturgical settings as a guide. But it will only cause your conclusions to miss their goal if you include New Testament references as these texts were never used in Jewish liturgy.

This means you need to make sure your conclusions are not made independent of Midrash and Talmudic sources, even Second Temple era teachings. While I know it is a common theme in your posts to try to connect the monotheistic concept of the Jews with an amalgamation of other neighboring gods, evidence suggests all these gods were contemporaries with YHWH, or at least the earliest concepts of G-d, and that they actually existed in a form of competition among followers who acted more like promoters at times. If you expand your research to include these sources you will find that your current theories will greatly expand.

18

GOD in the Beginning

by Doug Mason in

the ancient hebrews left two bequests:.

a universal, single god named yahweh;.

a series of writings identified as sacred scripture..

CalebInFloroda

Some of the details and conclusions are slightly different, but current Jewish thought and scholarship agree with Doug.

A good support from a reputable Jewish source is the recent BBC/PBS television series, "The Story of the Jews" by Simon Schama. it can found on some streaming venues, in the United States for rent on Amazon and Vudu.

YHWH, the G-d of Abraham and Sarah actually had to compete with other tribal gods until the Davidic dynasty made worship of YHWH the state religion of Israel. The Bible accounts are redactions into oral traditions that reflect a bit more fidelity to YHWH than what really existed until David's time.

However I do have one fairly unknown detail to add: the idea that YHWH is male is actually from a Christian invention due to the introduction of formal equivalence translations and word study independent of Jewish participation. The pronouns for G-d in Hebrew are actually neuter, even though they literally translate as "he," and the misogyny often attributed to the patriarchal system is based on an application of New Testament epistles introduced as an anachronistic principle for exegesis. Today only Fundamentalists tend to keep this as a holdover, as does traditional liturgical language in the Catholic Church such as in lectionaries and some psalters.

The strict demand that gender never be attributed to G-d from ancient Judaism become codified doctrine and to this day has affected languages such as English in rendering texts into the vernacular. Current versions of official siddurs, Passover haggadahs, and translations of Torah and the Tanakh in general into English are being produced that never use any type of male or female language for G-d, avoiding terms such as "he," "Lord," and "King," among others.

16

This is funny! BAR article asks: "Was Eve Made from Adam’s Rib—or His Baculum?" But what is a Baculum?

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

we all know the bible story (as its translated into english) that eve was made from adam's rib.

now bible scholar, ziony zevit, distinguished professor of biblical literature and northwest semitic languages at american jewish university in bel-air, california has written in the 'biblical archeological review' that the hebrew word that is traditionally translated as rib which is 'istsela has been wrongly translated.. zevit says, "it was first translated as rib in the septuagint, a greek translation of the hebrew bible from the mid-third century b.c.e.

however, a more careful reading of the hebrew word for rib in the adam and eve story suggests that eve was created from another, very different, part of adams anatomyhis os baculum (penis bone).".

CalebInFloroda

It's an interesting hypothesis, but it isn't accepted etymological theory.

The Hebrew word for "rib" in Gemesis 2 actually isn't "rib" at all. The word is actually "side" as in hillside or the side of a building.

I subscribe to the theory that since the word is so often used to refer to "walls" that the expression is describing Eve's creation in terms of making a building. A "side" or "wall" was taken from Adam, so to speak, to create the "building" of Eve. Semitic concepts of humans often pictured them as vessels and even arks (boxes or chests). The same word appears in reference to the walls of Noah's ark, the sides of the ark of the covenant, and the walls of various chambers and rooms in the First Temple.

24

The Romans did not crucify robbers

by purrpurr in

i've been reading a book called nonsense from the bible.

in it it makes the point that the romans did not crucify robbers.

having since researched this it seems this is true.

CalebInFloroda

@Terry

Actually the New Testament isn't being contradicting regarding putting people to death.

Under Roman law Jews were not allowed to impose the death penalty, but it is likely that the lynching of Stephen took place as recorded. I don't find it hard to imagine that certain Jews did carry out such an illegal stoning. People do that kind of thing, take matters into their own hands, and my people do have a history of defying Gentile authority. So Stephen's death is probably not too far-fetched a report.

24

The Romans did not crucify robbers

by purrpurr in

i've been reading a book called nonsense from the bible.

in it it makes the point that the romans did not crucify robbers.

having since researched this it seems this is true.

CalebInFloroda

@jhine

While I cannot promise I can walk that line perfectly, I have worked professionally with Catholics on translation and other theological projects. There is a very healthy dialogue between the two religions at present, part of which deals with a new understanding in Catholicism, namely that Catholics no longer believe in Superssionism and that the Jews are thus still in an active covenant relationship with G-d.

I cannot, of course, speak of the effects that this change is having on Catholic theology or practice, but I can use what I've learned through the years about Christianity and New Testament history to give some help in uncovering the problems JW theology has put upon itself by its peculiar reading of the Scriptures.

The idea that Christianity can exist without believing in a literal crucifixion or denying that Jesus was believed to be the very incarnation of YHWH is highly problematic. If these things weren't true, then there would be, for one thing, a very noticeable gap in Judaism's refusal to accept Jesus as the Messiah.

Witnesses tend to forget that as long as there has been a Christianity there has also been Jews claiming they don't believe in Jesus due to belief in his divinity and use and worship of the cross by Christians. Belief in Jesus requires what Jews see as defying the Shema, our most sacred prayer: "Hear, O Israel: Adonai is G-d. Adonai is One!" And the way the cross is used and displayed—well for Jews that's just plain idolatry.

If what the JWs claim is true, then how did Jews develop these counter-arguments regarding Jesus? If Jesus is just "a god" like the angels, why would Jews claim belief in Jesus violates the Shema? If Jesus did not die on a cross, why would Jews have arguments against its use in worship?

Until just recently with the release of the NRSV: Jewish Annotated New Testament (which is fruit of the Catholic-Jewish dialogue began in the 1960s), Jews had no access to or attempted to read the New Testament. Where did they get these ideas about the Incarnation and a cross and crucifixion (that is, not to mention our own history of the Second Temple era where we ourselves testify to the fact that Romans had a habit of nailing Jews to crosses who, by the way, weren't Jesus)? These Jewish counter-arguments are older than the Christian canon.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not think three-dimensionally. You can't take away "cross," the belief in the Incarnation, and you even have a problem with Petrine authority in the first century Church (as well as numerous other problems) if you take Witness theology as accurate. It doesn't work, and that's speaking for anyone whether you're a Jew or not.